Scripts are event driven? Wow had no clue
A lot of AM stations are automated these days also, syndicating popular national talk-radio programs. Any idea how to find out which ones aren't?
The laws of war generally oppose weapons intentionally intended to maim rather than kill. Mostly dates to popular revulsion around the WW1 era over weapons designed to inflict nonlethal but gruesome casualties to hobble the other side by flooding their hospitals and supply chains. As a result, countries agreed to a ban on various chemical weapons, expanding bullets, weapons designed to blind people, etc.
Then have both.
Unlike 16 bit to 32 bit it most simply is a recompile about 90% of the time unless you have assembly or something specific. My guess is the ugly Netscape API for the plugins which Chrome used to support until last year and of course Firefox is built upon this.
Newer atoms anyway are 64 bit. In the old days this would have been obsoleted in 3 years. I would have laughed at you in 2004 if you told me most things are still 32 bit 10 years from now. XP is still freaking alive too in a few places. I am just surprised what happened?
But the web unlike MS Word 2003 can't keep staying old and these things are slowed down by supporting obsolete platforms both hardware and software. Smooth scroll still does not work right in chrome because XP is so ancient and they still have to support it.
As browsers become more and more app platform engines it is essential to use cpu instructions included after the Pentium IV in this day and age. It is 2014 and 10 years is enough. XP is the sole reason 32 bit is still around.
Yes if it aint broke don't fix it became a conservative motto here with the nerds who are approaching middle age now, but the web is still evolving and HTML 5 and HTML 5.1 will include WebGL, more AJAX, and other things where a not just additional memory addresses but also cpu instructions which no one still uses can be utilized.
When will IE and Firefox jump ship next?
I still think in terms of double-sided Commodore 64 5-1/4" floppies. At about 320KB per disk, that'd be 1,388,888 disks.
Also true in actual careers like nursing fwiw. There's a nursing shortage (at least in the U.S.), and men are very underrepresented in the field, so nursing schools have been going out of their way to recruit men.
Isn't it pretty explicit that the lights are on? Review of applications isn't some kind of blind-review process.
It seems to be structured as kind of an intro to programming, which is one way CS101 classes (in Harvard terminology, CS50) are structured. Not really an intro to CS the discipline, but a broad intro to computers/programming in general for people who may or may not go into CS. Traditionally MIT took the opposite approach, but many schools took this approach.
Fwiw, you can find the 2013 version of the curriculum here (it seems to have been also co-offered as a MOOC). It does seem a bit like a grab-bag of "random stuff in computers".
Harvard gets far, far more applicants in every area than they can possibly accept to their relatively small student body. So shifts among disciplines and interests almost entirely reflect decisions on the part of Harvard admissions policies. They don't necessarily reflect shifts in either broader society or even the subset of society that applies to Harvard. It's possible they do, but it's also possible Harvard explicitly decided to accept more CS applicants for various reasons.
Your statement should apply equally to pedestrians and cyclists. However, pedestrians aren't the ones arguing that they'd be safer walking down the middle of the road than on the sidewalk.
Neither cyclists nor pedestrians travel down the middle of the road.
Because most pedestrians that are hit by an automobile are not on the sidewalk, they're in the road.
As I said, only a small fraction of cyclists are hit while traveling down the road not near an intersection.
At an intersection, by definition, YOU'RE IN THE ROAD, whether you had been on a sidewalk or not. Now read that last sentence again, because you seem to be incapable of understanding that simple geometric fact.
The issue is that motorists rarely look for objects moving faster than 0.5mph coming from a sidewalk. Maybe instead of making cyclists stop and dismount at every goddamned driveway as you want, we should address the original source of the risk and institute a nationwide comprehensive 15 mph speed limit.
I never suggested they didn't get killed by cars all the time. I said they manage to handle intersections just fine. That is, with an acceptable surivaval rate.
Where did you come up with that idea? Pedestrians are routinely killed at intersections, coming from sidewalks. Where do you get the idea that that's acceptable?
I don't hear nearly as much whining from pedestrians rights groups as I do from cyclists rights groups, so I assume that pedestrians have greater success in intersections than cyclists do. Of course, it's possible that cyclists are more whiney. Could go either way.
Maybe they're whiny because they hear unsubstantiated crap like this all the time from ill-informed people like you.
Somehow pedestrians manage to handle intersections just fine, all while staying on sidewalks and crosswalks. Perhaps if navigating intersections is too challenging on a bicycle, one might dismount and walk the bike cross?
Pedestrians get killed by cars all the time. Please stop talking out of your ass.
Yet only something like 5% of bike injuries involve being rear-ended by cars on roads.
Almost all other cases would involve intersections of some sort, where being on the sidewalk doesn't help or is counterproductive. You're still vulnerable to the high-speed cars while crossing roads, and you're more likely to collide because they're not looking at where you're coming from.